"Consanguinity, or kindred, is defined by the writers on these subjects to be 'vinculum personarum ab eodem stipite descendentium'; the connection or relation of persons descended from the same stock or common ancestor. This consanguinity is either lineal, or collateral.

"Lineal consanguinity is that which subsists between persons, of whom one is descended in a direct line from the other, as between John Stiles (the propositus in the table of consanguinity) and his father, grandfather, great-grandfather, and so upwards in the direct ascending line; or between John Stiles and his son, grandson, great-grandson, and so downwards in the direct descending line. Every generation, in this lineal direct consanguinity, constitutes a different degree, reckoning either upwards or downwards. The father of John Stiles. is related to him in the first degree and so likewise is his son; his grandsire and grandson in the second; his great-grandsire and greatgrandson in the third. This is the only natural way of reckoning the degrees in the direct line, and therefore universally obtains, as well in the civil and canon, as in the common, law. *

*

"This lineal consanguinity, we observe, falls strictly within the definition of vinculum personarum ab eodem stipite descendentium; since lineal relations are such as descend one from the other, and both of course from the same common ancestor.

"Collateral kindred answers to the same description; collateral relations agreeing with the lineal in this, that they descend from the same stock or ancestors, but differing in this, that they do not descend one from the other. Collateral kinsmen are such then as lineally spring from one and the same ancestor, who is the stirps, or root, the `stipes, trunk, or common stock, from whence these relations are branched out. As if John Stiles hath two sons, who hath each a numerous issue; both these issues are lineally descended from John Stiles as their common ancestor; and they are collateral kinsmen to each other, because they are all descended from this common ancestor, and all have a portion of his blood in their veins, which denominates them consanguineos.

"We must be careful to remember, that the very being of collateral consanguinity consists in this descent from one and the same common ancestor. Thus Titius and his brother are related; why? because both are derived from one father. Titius and his first cousin are related; why? because both descend from the same grandfather; and his second cousin's claim to consanguinity is this, that they are both derived from one and the same grandfather. In short, as many ancestors as a man has, so many common stocks he has, from which collateral kinsmen may be derived. *

"The method of computing these degrees (of collateral consanguinity) in the canon law, which our law has adopted, is as follows: We begin at the common ancestor, and reckon downwards; and in whatsoever degree the two persons, or the most remote of them, is COST.WILLS-25

distant from the common ancestor, that is the degree in which they are related to each other. Thus Titius and his brother are related in the first degree; for from the father to each of them is counted only one. Titius and his nephew are related in the second degree; for the nephew is two degrees removed from the common ancestor—viz., his own grandfather, the father of Titius."

2 Bl. Com. 201-207.

SECTION 2.-BLACKSTONE'S CANONS OF DESCENT

"The nature and degrees of kindred being thus in some measure explained, I shall next proceed to lay down a series of rules or canons of inheritance, according to which estates are transmitted from the ancestor to the heir, together with an explanatory comment, remarking their original and progress, the reasons upon which they are founded, and in some cases their agreement with the laws of other nations.

"I. The first rule is: That inheritance shall lineally descend to the issue of the person who last died actually seised in infinitum, but shall never lineally ascend.2 * *

"II. A second general rule or canon is: That the male issue shall be admitted before the female." *

*

"But our law does not extend to a total exclusion of females, as the Salic law, and others, where feuds were most strictly retained. It only postpones them to males; for though daughters are excluded.

"This rule was changed in England, by St. 3 & 4 Wm. IV, c. 106, which went into effect in 1834. The rule now established is that inheritance shall be traced from the last purchaser of the property; and for this purpose the person last entitled to the property shall be deemed to be the purchaser, unless it be proved that he inherited it. The ancient maxim, "seisina facit stipitem," is therefore entirely abrogated. The person "last entitled to the property' includes the last person who had a right thereto, whether he did or did not obtain the possession, or receive the rents and profits thereof.

"The rule that inheritances never lineally ascend has also been altered; and it is now provided that an inheritance shall descend to the issue of the last purchaser, and that, on failure of his issue, it shall pass to his nearest lineal ancestor, or the issue of such ancestor, the ancestor taking in preference to his or her issue. Paternal ancestors and their descendants are preferred to maternal ancestors and their descendants.

"In this country, the doctrine, 'seisina facit stipitem," has also been abolished in most, if not all, of the states, and an estate of inheritance passes to the heirs of the person who last had the right of ownership therein; and it is also a general rule that, in default of lineal descendants, lineal ancestors But collateral relainherit, in preference to relatives of the collateral line. tives are usually admitted after a father or mother, in preference to more remote lineal ancestors."-Chase's Note.

8 "This canon is still in force in English law, but does not prevail in the United States, where it is the established rule that all the children shall inherit equally, males and females being classed together."-Chase's Note.

by sons, yet they succeed before any collateral relations; our law thus steering a middle course, between the absolute rejection of females, and the putting them on a footing with males.

"III. A third rule or canon of descent is this: That where there are two or more males, in equal degree, the eldest only shall inherit; but the females all together.* * *

"IV. A fourth rule, or canon of descent, is this: That the lineal descendants, in infinitum, of any person deceased shall represent their ancestor; that is, shall stand in the same place as the person himself would have done, had he been living."

"Thus the child, grandchild, or great-grandchild (either male or female) of the eldest son succeeds before the youngest son, and so in infinitum. And these representatives shall take neither more or less, but just so much as their principals would have done.

*

"This taking by representation is called succession in stirpes, according to the roots; since all the branches inherit the same share that their root, whom they represent, would have done.

"V. A fifth rule is: That on failure of lineal descendants, or issue, of the person last seised, the inheritance shall descend to his collateral relations, being of the blood of the first purchaser, subject to the three preceding rules.R

* * *

"VI. A sixth rule or canon therefore is: That the collateral heir of the person last seised must be his next collateral kinsman, of the whole blood."

4 “This right of primogeniture is not recognized in the United States. No distinction is made between the children in regard to their interests in the estate of the deceased."-Chase's Note.

5 "This is also the general rule in the law of descent in the United States, when the lineal descendants are of unequal degrees of relationship to the common ancestor in whose estate they share. But, when they are of equal degrees of relationship, they take per capita; i. e., equally, or share and share alike."-Chase's Note.

"This rule is now modified by the provision, stated in a previous note, that lineal ancestors shall inherit in preference to collateral kindred.

"The rule generally established in the American law of descent, which is most closely correspondent to this English rule, is that, in default of lineal descendants or ancestors who are first entitled to inherit the property, the inheritance passes to collateral relatives. The classes of relatives who shall inherit in such a case are specially designated by the statutes of the several states, and there is considerable diversity of detail in the provisions of such statutes."-Chase's Note.

7 "This rule has also been altered to some extent by St. 3 & 4 Wm. IV, c. 106. Relatives of the half blood are now entitled to inherit next after any relation in the same degree of the whole blood and his issue, when the common ancestor is a male, and next after the common ancestor, when the common ancestor is a female.

"In this country, there is much diversity, in the statutory provisions of different states, in regard to inheritances by relatives of the whole and of the half blood. In some states, no distinction is made between those two classes; but, in the larger number, relatives of the half blood are postponed to those of the whole blood. In no state, however, are those of the half blood entirely excluded from the inheritance."-Chase's Note.

For a discussion of descent and distribution among kindred of the half blood, see 29 L. R. A. 541. note.

"VII. The seventh and last rule or canon is: That in collateral inheritances the male stocks shall be preferred to the female (that is, kindred derived from the blood of the male ancestors, however remote, shall be admitted before those from the blood of the female, however near), unless where the lands have, in fact, descended from a female."

2 Bl. Com. 208-234.

SECTION 3.-SEISIN AND DESCENT

NORTH v. GRAHAM et al.

(Supreme Court of Illinois, 1908. 235 Ill. 178, 85 N. E. 267, 18 L. R. A. [N. S.] 624, 126 Am. St. Rep. 189.)

CARTER, J. This is an action in ejectment brought by appellee in the circuit court of Edgar county against appellants to settle the ownership of a small tract, containing about a quarter of an acre of land, situated in that county. **The court entered judgment, holding that appellee was the owner of and entitled to the possession of the property in question. An appeal was thereupon prayed to this court.

From the agreed statement of facts it appears that Adam Stewart died in 1888, intestate, leaving no widow, and leaving as his only heirs at law his three daughters, Martha Stewart, Demeris Snyder, and the appellee, Mary North. Martha Stewart died in 1889, unmarried and without children. Demeris Snyder died in 1892, leaving W. W. Snyder, her husband, and Myrtle Snyder, her daughter and only heir at law. Myrtle Snyder died in 1898, unmarried, leaving the said W. W. Snyder, her father, her only heir at law. It appears that Adam Stewart and his wife February 1, 1877, made a deed of the land in question to the trustees of a Methodist church called "Pilot Class," of Edgar county, containing this provision: "Said tract of land above described to revert to the party of the first part whenever it ceases to be used or occupied for a meetinghouse or church." On July 10, 1886, Adam Stewart and wife quitclaimed the 80-acre tract of which this meetinghouse piece formed a part, with other property, to his brother, James Stewart, and the property thereafter, by a chain of conveyances, was conveyed from James Stewart to the appellants in this case.

*

[The court then discussed the question of the nature of the interest

& This general rule still prevails in England, though somewhat modified in detail, but not in this country. In some states, however, lands descended from a maternal ancestor go to kindred in the maternal line, and paternal inheritances to paternal kindred.-Chase's Note.

Part only of the opinion is given.

left in Adam Stewart after his deed to the church and decided that it was not a reversion, but merely a possibility of reverter, and concluded that discussion as follows:]

It is clear from these authorities that the right remaining in the grantor, Adam Stewart, after he had given the deed to the church. organization (so long as it was a mere possibility of reverter), was not one that he could convey or assign, and hence his quitclaim deed given thereafter to his brother conveyed no interest of any kind or nature in the land in question. Presbyterian Church v. Venable [159 Ill. 215, 42 N. E. 836, 50 Am. St. Rep. 159].

Appellants make the further contention that, even though the deed in question reserved in the grantor and his heirs only the possibility of a reverter, still the court should not have entered judgment in favor of appellee for all the premises; that the three daughters of Adam Stewart succeeded him, at his death, in the ownership of this possibility of reverter; that one daughter, Martha Stewart, died unmarried, without children, leaving her sisters, Demeris Snyder, and appellee, who succeeded her as owners of her interest in this possibility of reverter; and that Demeris Snyder's interest descended to her daughter, Myrtle, and through her to her father, William W. Snyder, who has since conveyed whatever interest he had to appellants. The authorities lay down the rule that the possibility of reverter, while it cannot be alienated or devised by the grantor, may "descend to his heirs." Presbyterian Church v. Venable, supra.

Did the land in question revert or descend to the grantor's heirs who were in existence at the time of his death, or to his heirs who were in existence at the time the fee in question terminated? The authorities do not appear to discuss this precise question. The right or interest under the possibility of reverter is very like, though, as we have seen, not strictly identical with, a reversion. Kales on Future Interests, § 1. In 1 Preston on Estates, 445, it is stated "that succession by heirship to these determinable fees is in the same order and under the same rules as the succession to estates in fee simple." Under the common law the reversion descended to the heirs of the person who was last seised in fee. Tiedeman on Real Prop. (3d Ed.) § 293; 4 Kent's Com. *388. Though the law passed an inheritance to the heir immediately upon the ancestor's death, he thereby only acquired a seisin in law, and this alone would not enable him to transmit the inheritance to his heirs. He must have obtained an actual seisin or possession or seisin in deed, according to the maxim, "Seisina facit stipitem," as contradistinguished from a seisin in law, in order to make the estate transmissible to his heirs. 27 Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law (2d Ed.) 297. This common-law doctrine was followed by the courts in early decisions of some of our states, but was repudiated by many, and has now been abrogated in most, if not all, so that "reversions and remainders vested by descent pass to the heirs in like man